Content uploaded by Dmitri Beliaev
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dmitri Beliaev on Jan 23, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
35
The principle aim of this paper is to present the evidence
behind our identication of the phonetic sign we, and
to trace some key implications of that decipherment.2
Additionally, however, it is our apologia—that is, our
explanation and justication of this strangely delayed
discovery, now only entering the scene some six decades
after Yuri Knorozov (1952) initiated the phonetic deci-
pherment of Maya writing. It seems an explanation may
be necessary since, as J. Eric S. Thompson observed just
seven years after Knorozov’s rst publication, “if his
readings are correct, the rate of decipherment should
have accelerated astonishingly, for, as with a code, each
new phonetic reading makes solution of the remainder
easier” (Thompson 1959:362). Thompson repeated this
criticism in his Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs (1962:28), and
once again in the third edition of Maya Hieroglyphic Writ-
ing (1971:vi). Each time, or so it seemed to Thompson,
the still-incomplete Maya syllabary provided eloquent
evidence that Knorozov’s decipherment was unwork-
able. We needn’t wonder, then, what Thompson would
have made of this addition to the Classic Maya sylla-
bary, which still contains signicant gaps some forty-
ve years after his nal rejoinder.
And yet, this criticism has always been an unjust
one. Maya writing is no “code,” but rather a visually
complex logosyllabic script of hundreds of signs that
underwent numerous changes during almost two thou-
sand years of use. Further, Thompson reveals more than
a little linguistic naïveté when he chides Knorosov for
“read[ing] the glyph for dog as tzul, a rare term” when
“it should be read pek, the common Yucatec word for
dog” (Thompson 1959:362).3 One might as well argue
that Old English hund “dog” should be absent from
Anglo-Saxon manuscripts on the basis of the rarity and
specialized meaning of hound in Modern English. And
yet, hound (OE hund) is the original term for “dog,” with
a long Germanic ancestry (cf. German Hund “dog”),
whereas dog (OE docga) is of uncertain origin and not
attested before the late thirteenth century (Algeo and
Butcher 2014:232-233).4 Similarly, lexical frequency in
Modern Yucatec is simply not a reliable guide to the lin-
guistic foundations of an ancient script, much less one
that seems on present evidence to have recorded a pres-
The Syllabic Sign we and an Apologia
for Delayed Decipherment
The PARI Journal 17(2):35–56 © 2016 Ancient Cultures Institute
tige form of ancestral Eastern Ch’olan (Houston et al.
2000).
In contrast to Thompson’s frequently repeated asser-
tion that the decipherment seems too long delayed for
comfort, the aforementioned orthographic, paleograph-
ic, and linguistic complexities actually make it rather
more likely that, as Stephen Houston (1988:126) sug-
gests, “[t]he complete decipherment of Mayan glyphs
is an event that neither we, nor perhaps our children,
shall ever see.” Specically, as the senior author has had
occasion to note elsewhere (Zender 2005a, 2005b, 2006b,
2014a), the difculties inherent in maintaining a consis-
tent visual separation of hundreds of distinct signs even
as they underwent formal changes and inuenced one
another over some two thousand years will continue to
ensure that numerous undeciphered signs remain “hid-
den in plain sight”: routinely mistaken for other signs,
even in the specialist literature, and therefore both mis-
read and incorrectly cataloged. In this paper, we dem-
onstrate through careful formal and contextual analysis
that one such sign, long ago assumed to have been un-
masked, has in fact been jealous of its real identity as
the phonetic syllable we. Yet we also provide an apolo-
gia for delayed decipherment by exploring how the we
sign—due to its pronounced visual similarities with T87
TE’ and T61, 62, 65, and 339 yu5—came to be visually
MARC ZENDER1
Tulane University
DMITRI BELIAEV
Russian State University for the Humanities
ALBERT DAVLETSHIN
Russian State University for the Humanities
1 Corresponding author (mzender@tulane.edu).
2
The we syllable was independently recognized by Zender and
Beliaev, and all three authors have contributed to this paper. An
early draft of this manuscript was circulated to fellow epigraphers
(Zender 2014b) and presented in two public meetings (Zender
and Stuart 2015; Zender 2015). We wish to acknowledge valuable
comments from Stephen Houston, Simon Martin, David Stuart, and
our anonymous reviewers. Beliaev and Davletshin’s work was sup-
ported by the Russian Science Foundation (project no. 15-18-30045).
3 In a critical but cogent review of Thompson’s Maya Hieroglyphic
Writing (1962), the linguist Archibald A. Hill (1952:184) noted with
respect to similar statements that “Thompson is rst of all unaware
that his problem is essentially a linguistic one, and is moreover
naively ethnocentric in his linguistic statements.”
4 See also “dog, n.1” and “hound, n.1,” Oxford English Dictionary,
2nd ed., 1989 (OED Online: dictionary.oed.com).
5 T-numbers refer to Thompson’s Catalog (1962).
36
Zender, Beliaev, and Davletshin
confused with these other signs by ancient scribes and,
as a result, mistakenly equated with them by modern
scholars.
“The Sun God Fills the Sky”
We begin our discussion of the we sign with an unprov-
enanced panel in the collections of the Kimbell Art Muse-
um (Figure 1). The panel was purchased by the museum
from a New York collector in 1971 and is difcult to trace
prior to 1970. Nonetheless, Peter Mathews (1997:243; see
also Mayer 1984:28-30) was able to demonstrate, on the
basis of carving style and epigraphic content, that the
panel originally came from the site of “Laxtunich,” some-
where in the vicinity of Yaxchilan. The site was named by
Dana and Ginger Lamb, who rst explored it in the 1940s
(Lamb and Lamb 1951). Although details of the site’s
discovery and location remain unclear, our understand-
ing of the epigraphic and iconographic content of the
Kimbell Panel is well advanced, beneting from histori-
cal and political connections to the comparatively well-
documented site of Yaxchilan and from more than three
decades of study by scholars (Schele and Miller 1986:226;
Schele and Freidel 1990:287; Martin and Grube 2000:135;
Miller and Martin 2004:30). Dated to August 24 and 27,
ad 783, the scene depicts a seated Itzamnaaj Bahlam
IV, ruler of Yaxchilan between ca. 769–800 (Martin and
Grube 2000:124), as he receives three evidently hapless
captives from the standing gure, identied as Aj Chak
Maax, a local lieutenant (sajal) of the king.
The monument contains captions for all of the de-
picted individuals, including an inventive reversed text
on the throne beneath the king, sharing his orientation
and giving his names and titles. There is also a sculp-
tor’s signature informing us that the panel was carved
by one Mayuy Ti’ Chuween of K’ina’, who also signed
Laxtunich Panel 4, which was photographed at the site
by the Lambs (see Mayer 1995:Pl. 121). Finally, there is
a main text providing a concise explanation of the scene
(Table 1).
Evidently, Aj Chak Maax had taken these captives in
a military engagement on August 24, 783. All of them
are otherwise unknown, probably hailing from smaller
sites in the vicinity of Laxtunich (the principle captive,
Baah Wayib, is said to be from a place named Chok Te’el
Naah). Then, three days later, he brought them before
his overlord as a gift, the presentation most likely taking
place in a sumptuous throne room at Yaxchilan itself.
Let’s turn now to the reversed caption text beneath
the king (Table 2). Although Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV’s reg-
nal name is not present, the inclusion of his pre-acces-
sion name, customary captor title, and the twin emblem
glyphs of Yaxchilan leave no doubt about his identica-
tion (Schele and Miller 1986:226). This needs to be high-
lighted, for although previous scholarship has accepted
this panel as a depiction of Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV, and the
che-le-wa CHAN-na K’IN-ni-chi spelling as a version
of his pre-accession name (Figure 2a), there has previ-
ously been no satisfactory explanation for the otherwise
unique T130 wa sign in the rst glyph block.6
This use of T130 wa is signicant because all of the
spellings at Yaxchilan of this king’s pre-accession name
5-HIX-K’IN *7-SAK-SIJOOM chu-ku-ja ba-wa-WAY-bi u-KAB-ji-ya AJ-CHAK-ma-xi
ho’ hix k’in huk saksijoom chu[h]k[a]j ba[ah] way[i]b ukabjiiy aj chak maax
“(On the) day 5 Ix 7 Zac, Baah Wayib was captured by Aj Chak Maax
3-la-ta na-wa-ja u-BAAK-ki ti-ya-AJAW
ux la[h]t na[‘]waj ubaak tiyajaw
(and) three days later his captives were presented to his lord.”
che-le-wa CHAN-na K’IN-ni-chi u-cha-nu TAJ-MO’ K’UH-PA’-CHAN-AJAW K’UH-?KAAJ-AJAW
cheleew chan k’inich ucha’n taj mo’ k’uh[ul] pa’chan ajaw k’uh[ul] kaaj ajaw
“He is Cheleew Chan K’inich, Captor of Taj Mo’, Divine Lord of Pa’chan and Kaaj(?).”
Table 1. The Kimbell Panel, main text.
Table 2. The Kimbell Panel, text beneath ruler.
6 One of our reviewers suggests that the reversed text may have
introduced complications into the rendering of this sign, making it
merely resemble T130 wa. Indeed, we have considered this explana-
tion for the divergent spelling, not least given several indications that
the sculptor may have been unfamiliar with reversed texts. Note, for
instance, that two of the signs in the caption have not been reversed
(chi and the second instance of AJAW), unlike the other eighteen
signs. That said, neither of these signs was corrupted, and there is
every indication that Mayuy Ti’ Chuween was otherwise fully in
control of his oeuvre, as indicated by his use of novel but perfectly
legible sign combinations for K’IN-ni-chi and u-cha-nu. Further,
comparison of the wa syllable in the che-le-wa spelling with those in
the na’waj verb and the two instances of Baah Wayib reveal consistent
and deliberate details that lend condence to our identication.
37
The Syllabic Sign we and an Apologia
Figure 1. Unprovenanced panel from the Yaxchilan Region. Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas, AP 1971.07
(drawing by Marc Zender after a photograph by Justin Kerr in Miller and Martin 2004:31, Pl. 2).
38
surely reminiscent of TE’ in having two distinct components—one
of them round with an inset circle, like a body-part marker, the oth-
er more oblong, with a line bisecting its length—the identity is not
exact. Notably absent are the “globules of resin” (Stone and Zender
2011:171) which serve as a diagnostic element of TE’ “wood” signs in
Maya art and writing. And note that the bisecting line in the mystery
sign (Figures 2b-c and 4) has a hook-like termination that does not
appear on TE’. That said, the outlines and even some of the internal
details of the two signs are very similar, and the “globules of resin”
(on TE’) and the hook-like element (on the mystery sign) are clearly
the main diagnostic features. In eroded contexts the signs are practi-
cally indistinguishable from one another, which helps to account for
occasional examples of one sign being drawn in lieu of the other.7 In-
deed, given the propensity of similar signs to formally inuence one
another over time (Lacadena 1995:220-236), it’s actually somewhat
surprising that Yaxchilan’s scribes were so consistent in distinguish-
ing between these two very similar signs.
There is, however, one remarkable exception. On Yaxchilan Stela
21 (Figure 5), a very late monument most likely commissioned in the
rst decade of the ninth century, the pre-accession name does indeed
seem to have been carved as che-le-TE’ CHAN-na-K’INICH. This
is a fragmentary monument, with a substantial amount of surface
weathering, yet Morley’s photograph supports the presence of the
“globules of resin,” vindicating at least Proskouriakoff’s third draw-
ing (Figure 3c). It therefore seems likely that, despite the otherwise
studied separation of these two signs, the late scribe or sculptor of
Stela 21 has here borrowed the “globules” from the TE’ sign and ap-
plied them to the mystery sign. Alternatively, the elements in the
mystery sign may have been inuenced by the presence of similar
elements in the nearby na signs (at pG2 and pH3), with which it also
seems to share a scalloped lower right corner. However precisely this
happened, we hasten to add that this is one of the latest monuments
at Yaxchilan and presently provides the only example known to us
where the mystery sign has come to resemble TE’ so closely.
Let us return to Tatiana Proskouriakoff’s initial identication of
the mystery sign as TE’, which now becomes easier to understand.
Although Proskouriakoff did not offer a phonetic reading of the pre-
accession name, her analysis is the ultimate source of the modern
transcriptions Chel Te’ Chan K’inich (Martin and Grube 2000:134),
Chelte’ Chan K’inich (Helmke 2010:7), and Cheleht Chan K’inich
Zender, Beliaev, and Davletshin
Figure 2. Various spellings of the pre-
accession name of Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV: (a)
che-le-wa CHAN-na K’IN-ni-chi, Kimbell
Panel (drawing by Marc Zender); (b) che-le-
we CHAN-na K’INICH, Yaxchilan Lintel 58,
E1-E2 (drawing by Ian Graham © President
and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, PM#
2004.15.6.6.32); (c) che-le-we ..., Yaxchilan
Stela 4, back, fragment G (photograph
courtesy of Carlos Pallan).
Figure 3. Tatiana Proskouriakoff’s renderings of the pre-accession name of Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV: (a) Yaxchilan Lintel 2, J1-J2; (b)
Yaxchilan Lintel 52, I2-I3; (c) Yaxchilan Stela 21, G3-H3 (Proskouriakoff 1964:Fig. 3).
instead employ a previously-unrecognized
mystery sign which has long been con-
fused with T87 TE’ (Figure 2b-c). We can
trace the onset of this confusion to Tatiana
Proskouriakoff (1964:190), who transliter-
ated the initial portion of the pre-accession
name as T145.188.87 (i.e., as che-le-TE’),
and illustrated TE’ as the nal element in
three distinct contexts (Figure 3). Contrast
Ian Graham’s more deliberate renderings
of the rst two passages for the Corpus of
Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions (Figure
4). Note that, while the sign in question is
b
a
c
b
ac
7 For example, Nikolai Grube (in Martin and Grube 2000:134) illustrates the rst
glyph block of the pre-accession name on Yaxchilan Stela 7 (front, pD2-pD3) as che-
le-TE’. And yet the nal sign is in fact broken beyond recognition on the original
monument (cf. Tate 1992:194, Fig. 89). In this case, it seems that Grube has merely
reconstructed the expected TE’ from other examples (e.g., Proskouriakoff 1964:190).
39
(Lacadena and Wichmann 2004:141), to list only the most common.
Unfortunately, all of these have proven impossible to translate satis-
factorily, and equally difcult to reconcile with our increasingly ma-
ture understanding of Maya onomastics. As is now fairly well estab-
lished, Classic Maya royal names are typically tripartite, grouping:
(1) an initial verb, frequently an affective, or a transitive verb in the
antipassive voice; (2) chan “sky,” and; (3) a theonym, such as K’awiil,
Chahk, or K’inich (see Grube 2001, 2002; Colas 2004; Zender 2010,
2014c). Thus, to return to the Kimbell spelling (Figure 2a), che-le-wa
CHAN-na K’IN-ni-chi can be transcribed as Cheleew Chan K’inich,
and translated as “(The) Sun God Fills (the) Sky.”8 Now, the easiest
way to reconcile this with the spellings at Yaxchilan would be to pro-
pose that the mystery sign is just an allograph of wa. As we will short-
ly discover, however, this runs afoul of the other settings of the sign,
where wa yields little sense. Nor does the mystery sign substitute for
wa in any other context. And, nally, we should try to explain the
context of the mystery sign in such close proximity with Ce syllables.
As David Stuart (2002a, 2008) has suggested, syllables of the shape Ce
The Syllabic Sign we and an Apologia
Figure 4. The pre-accession name of
Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV: (a) Yaxchilan Lintel
2, J1-J2; (b) Yaxchilan Lintel 52, I2-I3.
Drawings by Ian Graham © President
and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
PM# 2004.15.6.5.2 and 2004.15.6.6.26.
Figure 5. Yaxchilan Stela 21, with apparent TE’ sign in the pre-accession name
of Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV, pG3 (Morley 1937-1938:Pl. 104b). Note similarities to
na signs at pG2 and pH3. Glyph designations after Mathews (1997:Fig. 7.5).
ba
and Co, being outside the framework of the
Ci, Ca, and Cu signs employed to indicate
vowel complexity (e.g., Houston at al. 2004;
Lacadena and Wichmann 2004), tend to
spell lexical roots and sufxes synharmoni-
cally. That is, all else being equal, Ce and
Co syllables have a strong tendency to con-
gregate with syllabic signs and logographs
with which they share vowel quality. As
such, given that the mystery sign follows
che and le in the same glyph block and yet
presumably provides at least nal –w (giv-
en the wa on the Kimbell Panel), it seems
at least worth considering that it had the
phonetic shape we. If so, then all of the ex-
amples of the pre-accession name involving
the mystery sign (Figures 2b-c, 3–5) should
be transliterated as che-le-we CHAN-na
K’INICH and transcribed as Chelew Chan
K’inich. The potential solution is an excit-
ing one, inasmuch as it harmonizes the di-
vergent Kimbell Panel spelling of this name
with those found at Yaxchilan. Thankfully,
there is also ample precedent for just this
kind of orthographic variation in other
royal names. Thus, in the inscriptions of
Naranjo, while the antipassive verbal por-
tion of the regnal name K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan
Chahk is most commonly spelled TIL-wi
(e.g., K4464, K7750, and NAR St. 21, front)
or ti-li-wi (e.g., NAR St. 22, front), it also oc-
casionally appears as TIL-wa (e.g., K2085)
or ti-li-wa (e.g., K1398). Similarly, at Qui-
rigua, the antipassive verbal portion of the
regnal name K’ahk’ Jolow Chan Chahk is
usually spelled jo-lo-wo (e.g., QRG Str. 1B-
1, D1 and Q1), but it also occurs with nal
-wi (e.g., QRG St. I).
pA pB pC pD pE pF pG pH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8 The root chel is poorly attested in the relevant languages. The senior author
suggests chel “to space or place evenly, spread out, ll” on the basis of Ch’orti’
cher “spread, space or place evenly,” cherem “dense, placed together,” and cherem
tun “piled or covered with stones, stony all over” (Wisdom 1950:698-699; cf. Hull
2016:96), where Ch’orti’ r descends exclusively from earlier *l. The Yucatec noun
chéel “rainbow” (Bricker et al. 1998:68) might conceivably be related, inasmuch
as it would have descended from Proto-Yukatekan *chehl, whose form suggests a
deverbal noun (in -h-) and a pre-Proto-Yukatekan verbal root *chel. As descriptive
terms for a rainbow, “spread thing” or “full thing” seem at least possible.
40
Given these parallels, we may contemplate either
that che-le-wa and che-le-we are in free variation as
spellings of chelew, or, more interesting, that earlier
cheleew (with a –VV1w antipassive sufx of CVC root
transitives) had already lost or was beginning to lose
its long vowel and had either already developed or was
still developing into –V1w. The spellings we have just
considered all belong to the names of broadly contem-
porary Late Classic Maya rulers of the eighth and early
ninth centuries ad, in a period neatly corresponding to
Houston et al’s (2004:91-92) “synharmonic turn” of ca.
750–850, during which period various lexemes and mor-
phemes previously spelled disharmonically shifted to
synharmonic representation. As the same authors have
noted, such a shift might “indicate one of two things:
(1) a sound change from complex to simple vowels, as
expected by Ch’olan linguistic history [...]; or (2) an or-
thographic adjustment of a conservative or retardataire
written language to correspond with patterns in spoken
language” (Houston at al. 2004:97). The che-le-wa and
che-le-we spellings do not in themselves resolve these
two possibilities, but they do provide welcome addi-
tional data and suggest a spatial dimension to some of
these orthographic and phonetic developments. In the
capital, as we have seen, Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV’s pre-
accession name was always written with we, whereas
at the subordinate center of Laxtunich—possibly to be
equated with Tecolote, a fortied eighth-century site on
Yaxchilan’s northern border—it was written with wa.9
Cross-linguistically, sound changes (such as loss of long
vowels) tend to radiate outward from high-status centers
of innovation (focal areas), in waves which attenuate with
distance, occasionally failing to reach relic areas which
frequently preserve older forms (Hock 1991:432-444). It
is intriguing to speculate that che-le-wa (cheleew) and
che-le-we (chelew) appear in contemporary texts from
the periphery and core, respectively, because they repre-
sent an apparent time sound change which is in progress
or complete at Yaxchilan but which has not yet begun
or has not yet reached completion at Laxtunich (see
Nevalainen 2015:263-265). Additional examples would
be needed to test this possibility, but it is exciting that
Maya epigraphy and Mayan historical linguistics have
developed to the point where we can begin to consider
such intriguing historical sociolinguistic questions.
What we need at this juncture is a text from the hand
of a single scribe (or sculptor) showing the clear visual
separation of the putative we syllable from both T87
TE’ and T61, 62, 65, and 339 yu (with which, as we will
shortly see, it is also frequently confused).10 Thankfully,
we have just such a text in the exquisite painted lintel in
the collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Fig-
ure 6). Although unprovenanced, epigraphic and sty-
listic considerations indicate that this masterwork was
commissioned sometime between 769–800, and that it
came from La Pasadita, yet another fortied center on
Yaxchilan’s northern border (Doyle 2015).11 Thus, the
Zender, Beliaev, and Davletshin
che-le-we CHAN-na-K’INICH K’UH-?KAAJ-AJAW K’UH-PA’-CHAN-AJAW yu-xu-lu CHAK-ka-la-TE’
chelew chan k’inich k’uh[ul] kaaj ajaw k’uh[ul] pa’chan ajaw yuxul chak kal te’
“He is Chelew Chan K’inich, Divine Lord of Kaaj(?) and Pa’chan, (and) this is the carving of Chak Kal Te’.”
Table 3. Metropolitan Lintel, main text.
9 Laxtunich Panels 3 and 4 (both in private collections) likely
also record che-le-wa, although this is difcult to conrm given the
poor quality of available photographs. If so, then che-le-wa prob-
ably represents a localism. As noted above, the Kimbell Panel and
Laxtunich Panel 4 were both signed by the same sculptor, Mayuy Ti’
Chuween, of K’ina’. And although we do not know the location of
K’ina’, other references associate it with Piedras Negras, suggesting
that Laxtunich was situated somewhere between this center and
Yaxchilan (Guenter and Zender 1999; Martin and Grube 2000:146,
n. 10, 172-173, n. 74; Zender 2002:170-176, 2004:300, n.115). One
candidate for Laxtunich is Tecolote (Martin and Grube 2008:135), a
fortied eighth-century site on the northern border of Yaxchilan in-
vestigated by Charles Golden and Andrew Scherer; its architecture
emulates that of nearby Yaxchilan, and it is situated only 5 km from
La Pasadita, a known Yaxchilan client (Golden et al. 2005; Golden
and Scherer 2006; Scherer and Golden 2009).
10 Thompson (1962) provides a confusing set of designations
for yu, but only because the sign exhibits such profound formal
variation, with distinct Early Classic, Late Classic, and Postclassic
forms (Lacadena 1995:209-219), and with occasional graphic ab-
breviations. Thus, Thompson’s T65 is just the Early Classic form of
yu, T61 the Late Classic form, T62 the Postclassic form (Thompson’s
only examples come from the Madrid Codex), and T339 the graphi-
cally abbreviated forms. Henceforth, where we write yu, it should
be understood as encompassing T61, 62, 65, and 339.
11 Ian Graham visited La Pasadita in 1971 and was able to source
two looted lintels to La Pasadita Structure 1 on the basis of their
saw-marks, dimensions, and stone color (Ian Graham, personal
communication 2005; see also Adamson 1975:249-259; Simpson
1976:104; Graham 2010:461). The rst is now in the Ethnologisches
Museum, Berlin (IV Ca 45530); it depicts the La Pasadita sajal
Tiloom presenting his captive—T’uhl Chihk, prince of Piedras
Negras—to his overlord Bird Jaguar IV in 759. The second is now
in the Museum Volkenkunde, Leiden (3939-1); it also depicts
Tiloom, this time casting incense with Bird Jaguar IV in 766. Since
the Metropolitan Lintel also depicts Tiloom, albeit this time with
Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV (r. ca. 769–800), we follow Doyle’s (2015) sug-
gestions for its age and origin. More recently, La Pasadita has been
the subject of archaeological investigations by Charles Golden and
Andrew Scherer, who have documented its fortications and clear
architectural ties to Yaxchilan (e.g., Golden et al. 2005).
41
lintel depicts Tiloom, known to have been the sajal of La
Pasadita between at least 759–771, as he and one other
(unnamed) individual present offerings to Itzamnaaj
Bahlam IV, who sits cross-legged in regal splendor on a
decorated throne. Indeed, the scene possibly celebrates
an heir apparency rite for Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV, if not his
actual coronation in ca. 768–769. Be that as it may, the
lintel is undated, and the only texts are a short caption
between Tiloom and the king—ti-lo-ma sa-ja-la, tiloom
sajal, “He is Tiloom, the sajal”—and the slightly longer
main text of six larger glyphs above the king (Figure 7
and Table 3).
It is a welcome development to have such an accom-
plished text from a single hand that nonetheless includes
The Syllabic Sign we and an Apologia
Figure 6. Unprovenanced panel from La Pasadita, Guatemala. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Michael
Rockefeller Memorial Collection, bequest of Nelson A. Rockefeller, 1979.206.1047, www.metmuseum.org.
42
three signs that are often visually confused.12 Note how
Chak Kal Te’ has carefully distinguished between the
signs for we, yu, and TE’. Although all three signs share
a disc with medial circle and one or more oblong pro-
jections, Chak Kal Te’ has included diagnostic elements
that nonetheless separate the three signs. The we sign
carries its distinctive hook, which is slightly more angu-
lar than the curved lines in the projections anking the
central disc of yu. When yu is graphically abbreviated
to just the disc and one projection, as we will see, it is
really only this curvature that distinguishes yu from we,
and occasionally, as we have already seen with TE’, this
distinction in fact vanishes, leaving virtually no differ-
ence in the depiction of these two signs. On Chak Kal
Te’s masterpiece, however, only the TE’ sign carries the
“globules of resin,” visually distinguishing it from both
we and yu. Moving forward, we presume that Chak Kal
Te’ knew his craft, and we take the distinctions he made
between these signs on the Metropolitan Lintel as ca-
nonical, at least for the late eighth century Usumacinta
region.
To return briey to the historical sociolinguistic ques-
tion broached above, it’s fascinating to note that Chak
Kal Te’ spells the pre-accession name of his king che-
le-we—just as it is consistently spelled at the capital—
but distinct from the che-le-wa spelling employed by
Mayuy Ti’ Chuween at Laxtunich/Tecolote. Although
La Pasadita and Tecolote are roughly equidistant from
Yaxchilan (about 17 km), there are nonetheless some
indications that La Pasadita had somewhat stronger
connections with the capital (Golden et al. 2005), and
recall that Tiloom served both Bird Jaguar IV and his
son Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV and may therefore have been
familiar with the latter when he had not yet taken his
regnal name and was still known only as Chelew Chan
K’inich. Alternatively, if we consider that monumental
orthography was a sculptor’s prerogative, reecting
either his own pronunciation or the preferred pronun-
ciation or orthographic conventions of the workshop
where he was trained, Chak Kal Te’ may well have stud-
Zender, Beliaev, and Davletshin
Figure 7. Detail of the main text on the Metropolitan Lintel. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Michael Rockefeller
Memorial Collection, bequest of Nelson A. Rockefeller, 1979.206.1047, www.metmuseum.org.
12 As Doyle (2015) has noted, this clearly accomplished sculptor,
known only as Chak Kal Te’, carved at least one other lintel depict-
ing Tiloom, dated to 771. Still unpublished, it resides in a private
collection in Holland (Graham 2010:452-467). As one exercise in
understanding what we have lost, it is worthwhile to speculate
what the lifetime production of a master sculptor like Chak Kal
Te’ would have been, both in stone and wood, and yet we have
only two afrmed works by his hand. As René Derolez (in Page
1991:17) has observed with respect to Anglo-Saxon runes, “incising
runes may not have been a very common skill, so let us assume
that there were on average only ten ‘rune-masters’ ... active at any
given time, and that they produced each only two inscriptions a
year on durable materials ... Even on such a minimalistic estimate
they must have produced 2,000 inscriptions in every century. ... The
inscriptions found so far will then amount to less than one percent
of that total—a sobering thought, and one that ought to render any
implicit or explicit argument from silence highly suspect.” And this
is to say nothing of their potential output on perishable media. Such
studies as we have of Classic Maya sculptors (e.g., Davoust 1994;
Montgomery 1995, 1997; Houston 2012, 2013; Houston at al. 2015;
Martin at al. 2015) indicate that there may have been as many as
ten contemporary sculptors at every major center, suggesting that
these sobering statistics and their implications are equally relevant
to Maya epigraphy.
43
ied at Yaxchilan, whereas Mayuy Ti’ Chuween presum-
ably studied at K’ina’ (wherever precisely that was). In
any case, it may well be signicant, assuming our re-
construction of the historical development from –VV1w
to –V1w is correct, that La Pasadita has adopted either
the innovative che-le-we orthography or the innova-
tive –V1w pronunciation of the Yaxchilan court, while
Laxtunich/Tecolote has retained the more conservative
che-le-wa or –VV1w. Again, additional examples (and
more isoglosses) will be needed to test these possibili-
ties—not least given the signicant issues of statistical
sampling noted earlier (see footnote 12)—but there are
clearly prospects here for the mapping of historical so-
ciolinguistic variations and their correlation with politi-
cal afliation, ethnicity, and other cultural variables.
“He Stepped on the Causeway”
Let us turn now to the appearance of the putative we
sign in other contexts, beginning with a particularly
telling example on an incised alabaster bowl from
the La Florida valley, Honduras (Figure 8).13 The text
opens with the Calendar Round 7 Edznab 11 Yax (A-
B), convincingly placed by Berthold Riese (1984:14) at
9.17.4.10.18, or August 10, ad 775. Immediately follow-
ing this we nd three verbal phrases (C-F, G-I, and J-L)
before we come to the subject of this lengthy sentence,
identied as the ruler Yax Pasaj Chan Yopat of Copan
(M-R), who reigned from c. 763–810 (Martin and Grube
2000:206). The rst verbal phrase (C-F) is slightly prob-
lematic, since there are several weathered and uncertain
signs, but we can make out its basic structure as u-Ca-
ba-wa i-*tz’i-ni TE’ ta-ji, uCabaw itz’in te’ [itz’in] taaj, “he
...ed the junior stick(s) (and) [junior] obsidian(s).”14 The
verb is clearly an active root transitive declarative (like-
ly with unmarked aspect), and although of uncertain
meaning—owing in large part to the still-undeciphered
Ca syllable—its direct objects are the “junior trees and
junior obsidians.” This is almost certainly a reference
to members of a ranked ritual order of priest-scribes
(itz’iin taaj and sakuun taaj) only recently identied by
David Stuart and Franco Rossi in the mural paintings
of Structure 10K-2 at Xultun, Guatemala (Saturno et
al. 2015). The implication here is that Yax Pasaj was as-
sociated with a similar group of priest-scribes, whose
residences were perhaps located in El Abra and/or Los
Higos, two key Copan-afliated sites in the La Florida
valley (Canuto and Bell 2008).
The second verbal phrase (G-I) is much clearer, and
can be read as u-te-k’e-we bi TUUN-ni, utek’ew bi[h]
tuun, “he stepped on the causeway.”15 The sign below
te-k’e (at G) has long been interpreted as a graphically
abbreviated yu (strikingly similar to a bona de yu on
YAX St. 12, C3), particularly given the pronounced cur-
vature of the line in its oblong element. But yu makes no
sense in this context, and the close association with two
Ce syllables, as discussed above, rather suggests we.
In construction, the verb is another active root transi-
tive declarative, though here in a unique synharmonic
construction for the –V1w ending. As Robert Wald (1994)
has demonstrated, this inectional morpheme is more
typically written with syllabic wa regardless of the
identity of the root vowel, leading to some debate as to
whether it would be best represented as –VV1w, –V1’w,
or simply –V1w (Houston et al. 2000, 2004; Lacadena
and Wichmann 2004). We cannot resolve this debate
here, but we can contribute the observation that the
The Syllabic Sign we and an Apologia
Figure 8. The text on an alabaster bowl from the La Florida valley, Honduras (drawing by Linda Schele and Mark Van Stone, SD-
1041; slightly amended by Marc Zender based on photographs by Schele, research.famsi.org/schele_photos.html, #s 64051-64060).
13 According to Berthold Riese (1984:13), citing a personal
communication from Ricardo Agurcia, “the alabaster bowl was
discovered by a farmer in a signicant group of ruins in marshy
terrain near La Florida, Departamento de Copán, Honduras. It is
said to have been found in a hoard with other vessels, including
some of Copador type” (translation from the German).
14 One of us (Zender 2014d:7-8) has noted several precedents
for this kind of non-contiguous haplographic abbreviation, where
although itz’in (D) is written but once, it was likely intended to
modify both te’ (E) and taaj (F), as in similar diphrastic expressions
such as 3-9-CHAHK-ki for uhx chahk baluun [chahk] “three rain gods
(and) nine [rain gods]” (DO Panel, pC1 and pM1), and TE’-TOOK’-
BAAH-ja for te’ baah[a]j took’ [baahaj], “wooden image (and) int
[image]” (CRN HS2, Block XI, pA1). Such abbreviations are far
more common in the Classic Maya script than has been generally
recognized (see also Houston and Martin 2011).
15 There can be little doubt that this reects Proto-Ch’olan *tek’
“to step on, stand upon, kick” (Kaufman and Norman 1984:132; for
Ch’orti’ nuances see also Hull 2016:400). Tek’ is a CVC-root transi-
tive in both Ch’olan and Tzeltalan languages (Kaufman 2003:1420).
Other epigraphic contexts are supportive. Thus, on the DO Panel
from Palenque (D3-E3) we have the Classic Ch’olti’an passiviza-
tion te-k’a-ja yo-OOK tu-WITZ-li u-K’UH-li, te[h]k’aj yook tuwitzil
uk’uh[uu]l, “his legs were set upon the mountain of his god(s),” in
reference to a child’s induction into ritual practice (perhaps with as-
sistance?). Similarly, on Dresden 8c, accompanying a scene of God D
climbing temple steps, we have u-te-k’a-ja NAAH-hi ITZAM-na-?,
utek’aj naah itzamna ..., “Itzamna ... stepped in the house,” reecting
a Yukatekan completive root transitive in –aj (Hoing 2006:373-376,
Table 3). For bihtuun as “causeway (lit. road of stone)” see Stuart
(2007) and Martin (2015).
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R
44
synharmonic spelling of this verb—and probably the
still-undeciphered verb (at C) as well—is most likely
motivated by the late eighth-century context, during the
aforementioned synharmonic era (Houston et al. 2004).
For one thing, note that itz’in (D) and yopat (P) are also
written synharmonically. For another, as Houston et al.
(2004:91-92) have noted, Yax Pasaj’s Copan Temple 11
inscriptions in fact provide some of the earliest docu-
mented synharmonic spellings in the corpus, precisely
contemporary with the text on this alabaster bowl.
The text continues with the third verbal phrase (J-L)
AK’-ta ti-12-pa ta, ak’ta ti lajchan pata[n], “he danced with
12 (units of) tribute,” before concluding with the names
and titles of the king (M-R).16 Taken as a whole, then,
the alabaster vase records that “on the day 7 Edznab 11
Yax, Yax Pasaj Chan Yopat, Lord of Copan and bahkab,
...ed the junior sticks and junior obsidians, stepped on
the causeway, and danced with twelve units of tribute.”
These interrelated and interdependent actions likely
encompass Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat’s role as overlord
and ritual supervisor to the te’ and taaj ofceholders ac-
knowledged in the rst verbal phrase. The king’s tenta-
tive use of the causeway (perhaps in an ofcial act of in-
auguration), and his dance with tribute items (perhaps
clothing or jewelry provided to him for the event), prob-
ably served as public acknowledgements of the service
labor and material goods provided to the Copan state
by his clients in the La Florida valley. The alabaster ves-
sel itself was almost certainly carved at Copan—given
its ne calligraphy and precocious orthography in line
with contemporary carving at the capital—and it may
well have been gifted to Yax Pasaj’s clients, both in rec-
ognition of their past service and as a material reminder
of their socioeconomic obligations to the king.
Zender, Beliaev, and Davletshin
Figure 9. Unprovenanced drum altar from the Yaxchilan region. Fundación La Ruta Maya,
Guatemala (drawing by Nikolai Grube, after Grube and Luín 2014:Fig. 4).
16 See Stuart (1995:354-356; 2006:127-128) for patan as a generic
term for tribute, whether goods or labor.
45
“His Thing for Tamale-Eating”
In 2014, Nikolai Grube and Camilo Luín published a re-
markable drum altar in the collections of the Fundación
La Ruta Maya, Guatemala (Figure 9). As they observed,
the altar was evidently commissioned by Bird Jaguar
IV on 9.16.13.5.9 7 Muluc 17 Yaxkin (glyphs 1-2)—i.e.,
June 19, ad 764—at least partially in honor of his father
Itzamnaaj Bahlam III (r. 681–742), who is both named on
the upper text and depicted on the side of the altar (see
Grube and Luín 2014:Fig. 8 for details and discussion).
For our purposes, however, it is the dedicatory phrase
(at 3-8) that is most signicant, for there we can read
i-K’AL-ja yu-xu-lu u-we-be na-li ya-? u-mu-MUHK-
li, i k’a[h]l[a]j yuxul uwe[’]bnaal ya... umuhkil, “then the
carving of the altar of the ... of his burial was made/
adorned.”17 As Grube and Luín recognized, the owner
of the burial (named at 9-14) was apparently the child of
a woman (15-17) who had several other offspring (18, 19,
20, 21-22) including Itzamnaaj Bahlam III (23-29). Thus
Bird Jaguar IV apparently dedicated this mortuary altar
to his late paternal uncle. Note the potential we sign (5),
this time immediately above the syllable be (Houston
et al. 2006:243-250). Once again, it closely resembles a
truncated yu sign, which is how it was interpreted by
Grube and Luín (2014:41-42). However, as they readily
admit, *yu-be is a decidedly uncouth spelling, and the
search for relevant roots of the shape –ub(eC), –u’b, or
–uub comes up empty. On the other hand, we-be would
be a straightforward synharmonic spelling in keeping
with Stuart’s (2002a, 2008) principle.
We therefore interpret u-we-be na-li, uwe(’)bnaal as
a reduced form of *uwe’ibaanaal or *uwe’iba’naal, analyz-
able as *u-we’-ib-a-oon-aal. The rst element clearly pro-
vides the third-person possessive. The second element is
the intransitive verb root we’ “to eat (tamales)” (Zender
2000:143). The third is the common –ib instrumental
sufx, producing the now well-known Ch’olan term
we’ib n. “plate, dish (lit. tamale-eating-instrument),”
which appears on several tamale service plates dur-
ing the Classic period (Zender 2000:1043; see also Boot
2003:3). The fourth element is most likely the Ch’olan –a
causativizing sufx (MacLeod 1987:Fig. 12), producing
*we’iba “to use for the ingestion of tamales,” for which
we have the Ch’ol cognate we’iban with the same mean-
ing (Aulie and Aulie 1998:109).18 The fth element is the
Ch’olan –oon antipassive of derived and non-CVC-root
transitives (Lacadena 2000; Zender 2010:13, n. 22), prob-
ably producing something like *we’ibaan or *we’iba’n “to
tamale-eat,” where the impermissible a-oo contact likely
led to progressive vowel harmony and either regressive
quantity or the production of a glottal stop, assuming
Ch’orti’ morphophonemics and some potential script
parallels are reasonable guides here (Lacadena 2013:13-
16, and example 4). Finally, the last element surely rep-
resents a –VV1l nominalizing sufx. At this point, then,
we have either *we’ibaanaal or *we’iba’naal, meaning
“one’s thing for tamale-eating.” Note, however, that the
syllabic weight of the nal long vowel causes the stress
to shift, leading to syncopation of several unstressed
vowels (i and aa or a’) and probably of one or both glot-
tal stops (’), although weak consonants of this type are
typically abbreviated in Maya writing anyway (Zender
1999:130-142; Lacadena and Zender 2001:2-3). In the -
nal analysis, this leads us to uwe(’)bnaal “his thing for
tamale-eating,” the form directly indicated by glyphic
u-we-be-na-li.
Considered as a whole, then, the Classic Maya term
for altar seems to have referred to a place where tamale
plates or similar comestible offerings would have been
gathered. This is strikingly reminiscent of both Clas-
sic iconography and modern ethnographical accounts.
As Houston et al. (2006:122-127) have argued, Classic
altars and offering bowls were primary locales for the
feeding of gods and ancestors. They note that the al-
tar to Copan Stela 13 contains a dedicatory text which
records that “the food (uwe’) of the Sun God was fash-
ioned here” (Houston et al. 2006:123, Fig. 21). Similarly,
David Stuart (personal communication 2014) informs us
of an unpublished miniature altar from Yaxchilan, with
a possessed name tag likely reading either u-TI’-bi-li,
uti’bil “his thing for eating meat” (cf. Tzeltal ti’ “to eat
esh,” Berlin 1968:211) or u-WE’-bi-li, uwe’bil “his thing
for eating tamales.”19 Classic Maya texts and iconogra-
phy also indicate that human hearts were the principle
food of the Sun God, but “the tamale was linked con-
ceptually to the human heart” and “this organ or its
symbolic substitutes may well have been the offering on
the altar” (Houston et al. 2006:123). These observations
resonate with ample references in the ethnographic lit-
erature to mesas as “eating places” for ancestors. Thus,
as Bruce Love notes, mesas in contemporary Becanchen,
Yucatán, are stacked with “cups of báalche’, cups of thick
soup [known as k’óol], ... and piles of various classes of
breads” (2012:129). Such “offerings and artifacts” were
the means by which “humans and spirit beings alike
would receive sustenance” (Love 2012:107). Although
the Spanish borrowing mesa is now the term of art for of-
The Syllabic Sign we and an Apologia
17 Grube and Luín (2014:48, n.1) have proposed k’al “make” on
the basis of Ch’ol k’äl vt. “construir (casa)” (Aulie and Aulie 1998:20)
and Ch’olti’ <cale> (k’al-e) “haser” (Morán 1695:36). Another pos-
sibility would be k’al (later ch’al) “adorn, decorate,” as suggested
by Ch’ol ch’äl vt. “to adorn something” (Hopkins at al. 2011:48) and
Tzeltal ch’al-el vt. “adornar” (Slocum et al. 1999:36).
18 The -n in the Ch’ol form is not related to the –n in Classic
we(’)bnaal, for it instead marks incompletive aspect in the greatly
reorganized Ch’ol verbal paradigm.
19 Alexandre Tokovinine (personal communication 2015) kindly
suggests to us that Río Amarillo Altar 1 may contain a relevant
parallel in one of its dedicatory passages (at V1-U2), which pos-
sibly referred to the altar as a *we-be TUUN-ni, we[’b]tuun, “eating
stone.” The presence of be is certainly supportive but, as Tokovinine
points out, the potential we sign is too eroded to be certain.
46
fering tables in Ch’olan and Yukatekan languages, Colo-
nial dictionaries still preserve older forms that are much
more reminiscent of Classic we(’)bnaal, such as Colonial
Tzotzil ve’ebal “dining table” (Laughlin 1988:327) and
Colonial Yucatec wi’ileb che’ “mesa de comer” (Pío Pérez
in Barrera Vásquez et al. 1980:923). This continuity in
ritual practice and the terminology of offering tables is
striking; moreover, it provides particularly strong evi-
dence in support of the we decipherment.
“They Delivered Their Carvings”
Early last year, Martin et al. (2015) presented an insight-
ful new analysis of the lengthy, well-executed sculptor’s
signature on Calakmul Stela 51 (Figure 10). As they
demonstrate, the monument depicts the Calakmul king
Yuknoom Took’ K’awiil (r. ad 702–731). It was erected
at the base of Structure I in 731 and was carved in a
somewhat better, denser stone than other Calakmul
monuments and “may have been imported to the site”
(Martin et al. 2015:Note 2). This is essential background
to their analysis of the text, which, leaving the introduc-
tory verb (F1) to the side for the moment, clearly refer-
ences two different individuals. The rst is introduced
by the possessed noun yuxul “his carving” (G1), fol-
lowed by his name (G2-G3) and the titles k’uhul ‘chatahn’
winik (G4-H1) and sak wahyis (H2), both associating him
with the region encompassing Calakmul and sites to the
south as far as La Corona. The second individual is also
introduced by yuxul (at H3), followed by his name (H4-
I2), and several titles including the possible emblem
glyph of Uxul (I3), k’uhul sak wahyis (I4) and an unclear
element (J1). This analysis of the text is supported and
extended by a near-duplicate sculptor’s signature on
Calakmul Stela 89. As the authors note:
The incised texts on Calakmul Stela 51 and 89 are conven-
tional sculptor’s signatures in a number of respects, but are
unusual in two significant ways. First, they are the only ones
to name major lords and indicate that they were personally
responsible for the creation of the work. There are a few
cases in which artisans carry high social position, but no oth-
ers in which the governing elite of distant political centers
are specified in this manner. We need not take this at face
value, but instead consider the ways that these characters
may have commissioned these two monuments and stand
as symbolic or rhetorical producers—an adaptation of the
normal function of signatures. (Martin et al. 2015)
Now let us return to the introductory verb (at F1).
Martin et al. (2015) suggest the reading ye-be-yu, and
suggest possible linkages to either Proto-Ch’olan eb tv.
“to send/deliver, give” (from Proto-Mayan *ab tv. “to
send, give” per Kaufman 2003:58) or to Proto-Ch’olan
*ye’-be “to give something to someone” (Kaufman and
Norman 1984:137), in which *-be would have functioned
as the applicative, marking an indirect object (see
Kaufman and Norman 1984:139). As they observe:
... either verbal root would imply that the text on Stela 51 is
a statement of gifting or tributary payment, and if this is so
then this small inscription is a revealing statement about the
relationship and obligations between Calakmul and two of
its leading clients. (Martin et al. 2015)
The consideration that some monuments (perhaps
not CLK St 51 and CLK 89 alone) were commissioned
as gifts or tribute for overlords is an exciting one that
deserves continued investigation elsewhere, including
close attention to quality of stone, paleography, and
sculpting style. Nonetheless, we concur with the au-
thors’ conclusions and only wish to take a closer look at
the verb (F1).
The fact is that ye-be-yu is an awkard glyphic spell-
ing. The authors admit as much when they note that
“[t]he role of the terminal yu as a verbal sufx is unclear.”
Indeed, there are few precedents for this kind of spelling.
(Tikal Lintel 2 of Temple IV, B11, is possibly comparable,
inasmuch as the still-undeciphered T174var, denoting
a verb root in some other contexts, is here followed by
–yu, but it is by no means certain that it represents a
Zender, Beliaev, and Davletshin
Figure 10. Incised text on Calakmul Stela 51, F1-J1 (drawing
by Simon Martin, after 1932 photograph by Frances Morley;
note that glyph designations here depart from those in
Ruppert and Denison 1943:11).
F
G
H
I
J
47
verb here.) Perhaps more importantly, there is no clear
etymology for the resultant sufx, whether *–eyu(C),
*–e’y, or *–eey. Orthographically speaking, however,
and as we have now seen in several other contexts, the
syllables ye and be strongly suggest that the nal sign
should also be a Ce syllable. In this case, we suggest
we. True, this would be our rst instance of a “full” we
syllable with anking oblong elements (it is likely not
the only one), and there is no doubt that it even more
closely resembles yu as a result. But we would argue
that the signs still have a few distinguishing features.
Note, for instance, that the tentative we (F1b) is much
taller than it is wide and has only one medial circle in
its central element, as well as curved bisecting lines in
its oblong anges that do not quite touch the sides. By
contrast, the two certain yu signs (at G1a and H3a) are
proportionally somewhat more squat, have a circle with
additional ring in their central elements, and slightly
more angular bisecting lines in their anges that reach
all the way to the left edge of the sign. Assuming that the
sculptors of what Morley (1933:200) termed “the most
beautiful monument at Calakmul” knew their business,
it seems reasonable to propose that these differences,
however slight, may have been intentional.
Be that as it may, we can now suggest ye-be-we,
yebew, “they delivered them.” Instead of an obscure
verbal formation, we have the familiar active root tran-
sitive declarative, albeit in a late synharmonic spelling
probably reecting –V1w. As rst suggested by Martin
et al. (2015), the root likely reects Proto-Ch’olan eb
tv. “to send/deliver, give,” which in turn hails from
Proto-Mayan *ab tv. “to send, give” (Kaufman 2003:58).
This is the same root that furnishes us with the derived
Proto-Ch’olan noun *ebet “messenger (i.e., one who
delivers, gives)” (Kaufman and Norman 1984:119), and
which likewise appears in the script in the spellings
ye-be-ta and, somewhat later, ye-be-te (Houston et al.
2006:243-250). Given the usual syntax of transitive ver-
bal phrases, we might have expected the inected verb
to be followed rst by its direct objects (its patients) and
then by its subject (the agent), but we would argue that
this particular context presented unique challenges in
the form of two sculptors each receiving more or less
equal credit for the gift (though it might be noted that
the order of the two sculptors is equivalent on both CLK
51 and 89). Put another way, the syntax of grammatical
possession, where possessed nouns (G1 and H3) must
be followed by their possessors (G2-H2 and H4-J1),
effectively means that we are provided with the direct
objects and agents simultaneously. As such, we can
offer the following loose translation of the entire sen-
tence, leaving out undeciphered, eroded, or uncertain
elements, and reorganizing the syntax to comport with
English: “Sak Ikin ..., k’uhul ‘chatahn’ winik, ..., sak wahyis
(and) ... ... Tzahkaj Bahlam, naahkuum ajaw, k’uhul sak
wahyis ..., delivered their carvings.”20
“Eight Thousand Pelts”
Our next context takes us to a well-known Codex-
style vase in the collections of the Los Angeles County
Museum of Art (Figure 11). Although unprovenanced,
recent epigraphic, stylistic, and chemical analyses—both
of archaeologically-recovered specimens and pieces in
museum collections—indicate that such vessels were
produced almost exclusively in the Mirador region of
northern Guatemala, primarily at Nakbe, in the period
between ca. ad 675–750 (Reents-Budet et al. 2010). This
elegant masterwork depicts a rogues’ gallery of night-
marish wahy beings, including an enigmatic jaguar
rst identied by Nikolai Grube and Werner Nahm
The Syllabic Sign we and an Apologia
20 One of our reviewers, while acknowledging the general
desirability of avoiding stilted phrasing by converting Mayan VOS
syntax into English SOV syntax in translation, nonetheless asks us
“to also provide an intermediate bridge between what was written
and your translation.” We are happy to do so. If we translate loosely
and track the original syntax we instead have something like: “They
delivered them, the sculpture of Sak Ikin ..., k’uhul ‘chatahn’ winik, ...,
and sak wahyis (and) the sculpture of ... ... Tzahkaj Bahlam, naahkuum
ajaw, k’uhul sak wahyis, and ...”.
Figure 11. Unprovenanced Codex-style vessel. Los Angeles
County Museum of Art, Gift of the 2006 Collectors Committee,
M.2006.41, www.lacma.org.
48
(1994:687-688).21 Despite what at rst glance seems to be
a rather active pose, however, the jaguar may well be
deceased. His eyes are closed, his lips are pulled back
to reveal several teeth, and his tongue emerges from
his mouth. Moreover, his tail is humbly tucked forward
between his legs, and he sports a large scarf knotted at
the throat—an iconographic theme that has been linked
to ritual beheadings (Stuart 2014).
The creature’s caption appears in ve glyph blocks
which seem to oat in front of his face, with the fourth
block slightly overlapped by his muzzle (Figure 12).
Grube and Nahm (1994:687) propose that the rst
two should be read as ?K’IN-TAN-la BOLAY-yu, k’in
tanal bolay, “sun-stomach-jaguar,” citing Proto-Cholan
*bo’lay “spotted; jaguar” and *tahn “chest” (Kaufman
and Norman 1984:Items 55, 504). We concur with vari-
ous aspects of this reading, but it’s clear to us that the
rst glyph block was damaged by the crack passing
through it, and has most likely suffered repainting as a
consequence. Rather than “a vase turned upside down
with a k’in sign inxed” (Grube and Nahm 1994:687),
we suggest that this was originally simply *K’IN-*ni, as
suggested by several glyphic parallels to be discussed
presently.
As for the second glyph block, we are dubious
about the BOLAY identication for several reasons.22
First, given our present understanding of Classic Maya
orthography, –yu is an unlikely phonetic complement
for bo’lay, which has no vowel complexity in its nal syl-
lable. Second, the T832 “headless jaguar” sign would be
a strange choice of icon for bo’lay, a generic term which
refers to all kinds of dangerous animals, including not
only jaguars, but also jaguarundis, coyotes, foxes, and
several types of venomous snakes (e.g., Barrera Vásquez
et al. 1980:62, Hopkins et al. 2011:23-24). Bo’lay only gains
specicity when it is prexed by a color term, as in Ch’ol
k’än bo’lay “coyote” and ik’ bo’lay “nauyaca” (Hopkins
et al. 2011:23-24). To our knowledge, the T832 “headless
jaguar” is never prexed by a color term. Third, we now
have at least one Classic example of the term bo’lay on a
Late Classic polychrome cylinder vase in the collections
of the Fundación La Ruta Maya, Guatemala, where we
nd the captor title u-CHAN-na SAK-bo-la-ya, uchan
sakbo[’]lay, “captor of Sak Bo’lay” (Musée du quai Branly
2011:170), and this further suggests that –yu would be
an unlikely complement to a BOLAY logogram. Fourth,
to the extent that we can trust the details on the LACMA
vase, the sign below the “headless jaguar” more closely
resembles TE’ than it does yu. As we will shortly see,
however, it is most likely none other than the we sign,
here with the selfsame TE’-like inxes that we have
already seen on Yaxchilan Stela 21.
The strange wahy character appears on a couple of
other vases, and his name also features as an epithet
of the Sun God in still other contexts. Of the eight ad-
ditional examples of this name phrase that are known
to us, we have culled ve that are least eroded and yet
also provide broad regional and chronological coverage
(Figure 13).23 We will examine these chronologically,
tracing both spelling variations and the paleographic
development of the we sign. Erected in ad 488, Tikal
Stela 3 provides our earliest example (Figure 13a).
Despite signicant erosion, the signs can be reasonably
reconstructed as *K’IN-*TAHN-na T832-we. Note the
form of the nal sign, with its curved bisecting element,
so very different from the angular TE’-semblant on the
much later LACMA vase. Only the we sign has this de-
velopmental history. Our second example is Yaxchilan
Lintel 47 (Figure 13b), dating to ad 526, and here suf-
cient detail survives to allow certainty as to the identities
of all ve elements, K’IN-TAHN-na T832-we. Note the
internal circlets on the curved bisecting element. (Tikal
Stela 3 likely featured these as well.) Grube and Nahm
(1994:688) interpreted this as T21 bu, but this is more
likely to be an Early Classic diagnostic of we, lost in Late
Classic examples, as the we sign moved to distinguish
Zender, Beliaev, and Davletshin
Figure 12. Detail of caption on the LACMA vase. Los Angeles
County Museum of Art, Gift of the 2006 Collectors Committee,
M.2006.41, www.lacma.org.
21 The WAY glyph was deciphered by Houston and Stuart
(1989), while a useful compilation of wahy beings was provided by
Grube and Nahm (1994). The original conception of these beings as
“co-essences” of Maya rulers has more recently shifted to take ac-
count of their nocturnal and threatening aspects, as well as the rich
tradition of nagualism in Mesoamerica (see, e.g., Stuart 2002b:411,
2005; Zender 2004:72-77; Helmke and Nielsen 2009). More recently
Zender (in Stone and Zender 2011:233, n.7) has outlined the etymo-
logical evidence in support of *wahy “sorcery, spirit.”
22 It might be noted that our concerns about the proposed
BOLAY reading apply equally to Helmke and Nielsen’s (2009:Fig.
2) more recent proposal of BOL.
23 For completists, the three remaining examples are: (1)
Xunantunich Stela 1, B1, heavily eroded, ... ... T832-*we ...; (2)
K1743, some repainting, [?K’IN]?TAHN T832 u-WAY-?ya ?; (3)
“Deer-Dragon Vase,” K’IN-ni to/TOK-T832 ba-tz’u u-WAY-ya
?-?TAL-?la (Robicsek 1978:Fig. 145; Schele 1985:61, Fig. 3).
49
itself from bu (and mu) and in so doing came instead to
be visually confused with yu and then, still later, with
TE’. Our third example is from Palenque’s Tablet of the
Sun, dedicated in ad 692 (Figure 13c). Here we can read
the sequence as K’IN-ni-TAHN-na T832-we-la, and we
now has the familiar yu-like features seen in other Late
Classic contexts. However, note the novel la syllable
inxed into its disc. Yaxchilan Stela 18 is our fourth ex-
ample, dating to ad 723 (Figure 13d). It is very similar to
the Palenque example with one small difference: la and
we appear to have changed places. This may just be an
example of playful sign ordering, but it’s also possible
that the “full form” of we is implicated, with la merely
inxed into its leftmost ange. If so, then the matter is
handily explained, since inxed signs can be read either
before or after the signs into which they are inxed.
Finally, we come to our fth example, Ek Balam MT 7
(Figure 13e), an incised bone lancet from the tomb of
Ukit Kan Lehk Took’, dating to ca. ad 785. Unfortunately,
although clearly the same epithet, erosion makes it dif-
cult to conrm whether the we sign has here developed
the TE’-like details seen on Yaxchilan Stela 21 and the
LACMA Vase. We include it here only to establish that
the we sign is also attested in Late Classic northern
Yucatán.
Having traced the visual history of the we sign in the
context of its role as a phonetic complement to the T832
“headless jaguar” sign, we now have more than ample
evidence to propose a decipherment for this logogram.
Note that Early Classic forms seem to complement T832
with we alone, whereas the Late Classic examples fea-
ture both we and la. Recall also the consideration that
Ce signs tend on the whole to operate as synharmonic
complements. This suggests that T832 should be of the
form Cew (later Ceweel), and by far the best candidate
is the widely-diffused lowland term *k’eweel “cuero
(leather), piel de animal (pelt)” (Kaufman 2003:375),
with cognates including Ch’orti’ k’ewer “leather, skin,
hide” (Hull 2016:231), Itzaj k’ewel “hide, skin” (Hoing
and Tesucún 1994:390), and Yucatec k’éewel “skin, hide,
leather” (Bricker et al. 1998:151). A “headless jaguar”
seems a reasonable icon for “leather, skin, hide.”
Incorporating the head of the jaguar may have been
confusing, in that it might have connoted the animal
itself rather than its handsome pelt. Further, as Stephen
Houston (personal communication 2014) usefully sug-
gests to us, a jaguar’s skin must have been something
of an exemplary pelt, the most valuable of all, and it
therefore makes sense that it would have been chosen
as the type example for a generic concept. Andrea Stone
and Marc Zender have made a similar point about the
sign for “tail,” noting that:
while the NEH sign is a perfectly natural depiction of a
jaguar tail, it is at best a highly conventionalized term for
tails in general, particularly when employed as a descrip-
tor for the tails of coatis, deer, and monkeys, for instance.
As with all hieroglyphic scripts, this decoupling of specific
characteristics is unavoidable whenever one seeks to repre-
sent a general category, for categories do not actually exist in
nature, and one must therefore choose a specific member of
the category to represent. (Stone and Zender 2011:205)
Accordingly, we propose that the T832 “headless jag-
uar” was in fact the logogram for K’EW “pelt.” Thus,
even though –el (Ch’orti’ –er) is not a separable part of
the modern terms—e.g., Itzaj uk’ewelal balum “jaguar
skin” (Hoing and Tesucún 1994:390) and Yucatec
uk’éewlil kéeh “deerskin” (Bricker et al. 1998:151)—it
nonetheless seems likely that this element originated
as an inalienable sufx sometime between the late
sixth or early seventh century ad (thereby accounting
The Syllabic Sign we and an Apologia
Figure 13. Various spellings of the K’in Tahn K’eweel
epithet: (a) *K’IN-*TAHN-na K’EW-we, Tikal Stela 3, C3-
D3, ad 488 (drawing by Marc Zender after William R. Coe
in Jones and Satterthwaite 1982:Fig. 4a ); (b) K’IN-TAHN-
na K’EW-we, Yaxchilan Lintel 47, C3-D3, ad 526 (drawing
by Marc Zender after Ian Graham, CMHI 3:103); (c) K’IN-
ni-TAHN-na K’EW-we-la, Palenque Temple of the Sun
Tablet, C2-D2, ad 692 (drawing by Marc Zender after a
photograph courtesy of Linda Schele); (d) K’IN-ni-TAHN-
na K’EW-we-la, Yaxchilan Stela 18, front, C1-B2, ad 723
(drawing by Ian Graham, from Martin and Grube 2000:123);
(e) K’IN-ni *TAHN-na K’EW-we(-la?), Ek Balam MT 7,
B13-B14, ca. ad 785 (drawing by Marc Zender after Alfonso
Lacadena in Grube at al. 2003:25).
ba
c d
e
50
for the absence of -la in our Early Classic spellings),
before becoming fossilized and reinterpreted as part of
the root. Note that –Ce-la is precisely the spelling we
would expect for an early inalienable sufx, before later
changes (either to orthography or pronunciation) led
to the adoption of synharmonic –Ce-le.24 Thus, Classic
Maya epigraphy and philology, combined with the
results of the comparative method, now allow us to
trace the development of this term from Preclassic *q’ew
to Early Classic k’ew (in the fth and sixth centuries) to
Late Classic k’eweel (in the seventh and eighth centuries)
to modern k’ewel and k’ewer. The historical semantics of
this word are less clear, but it would be naïve to believe
that it always meant “leather, skin, hide.” As such, it’s
interesting to note once again that Maya scribes selected
a “jaguar pelt” to represent the lexeme and, as we will
shortly see, that its only known script contexts refer to
pelts exclusively. This is mind, it might be the case that
this term developed from a narrow reference to “animal
pelts” in the fth through eighth centuries, and only
later broadened to encompass “leather” more generally,
as in Ch’orti’ where (uniquely) k’ewer can also mean
“whip” and “lasso” (Hull 2016:231).
To return to the caption text associated with our
wahy being (Figure 12), we can now read it as *K’IN-
*ni-TAHN-la K’EW-we u-WAY-ya K’UH-ka-KAAN-
AJAW, k’in tahn k’ewe[l] uwa[h]y k’uh[ul] kaan[ul] ajaw,
“Sun-Chested Pelt is the nagual of the divine Kaanul
lord.” The precise sense of “Sun-Chested Pelt” is some-
what elusive, but we need no longer wonder why the
jaguar appears to be deceased and sports the sacricial
scarf. Evidently he is just a jaguar pelt, albeit one with a
sunny chest. In other contexts, as we’ve seen, K’in Tahn
K’eweel appears to have been a venerated epithet of the
Sun God, suggesting that animal skins may have had
some special relevance for him, perhaps as an item of
clothing or a select tribute offering. On the other hand,
there are several Colonial Yucatec idioms that might
prove relevent to the role of k’ew in a deity epithet,
such as k’éewlil báalam “sabio, prudente, de varios
pareceres (wise, prudent, of considered opinion)” and
bay uk’éewelil báalam upuksi’ik’al Juan “es Juan muy sabio
y prudente (John is very wise and prudent)” (Barrera
Vásquez et al. 1980:396).
Unfortunately, we do not nd K’EW in many other
contexts, but one welcome exception is a lavish scene
of tribute offerings on an unprovenanced vase in a
private collection (Figure 14). Here, the Maize God
Zender, Beliaev, and Davletshin
24 As an example, consider Shell Pendants 15A/15B from
Comalcalco Burial Urn 26, where we have the construction: t’o-xa-
ja a-pa-ka-la TAHN-na ti-BAAK-ke-la ... K’INICH-K’AN-to-ko-
mo-o, t’o[h]xaj a[j] pakal tahn tibaakeel ... k’inich k’an tok mo’, “Aj Pakal
Tahn was cut with the bone of ... K’inich K’an Tok Mo’” (Zender
2004:259-260, Fig. 75). By contrast, a roughly contemporary spelling
on a bone hairpin from Yaxchilan Tomb 2 of Structure 23 instead
provides u-ba ke-le BAHLAM-ma IX k’a-ba-la XOOK-ki, ubakel
bahlam ix k’abal xook, “this is the jaguar bone of Lady K’abal Xook”
(Stuart 2013). Broadly speaking, however, the spellings with -la
seem to be earlier than the ones with -le.
Figure 14. Tributary scene on an unprovenanced polychrome vase in a private collection (photograph K5062 © Justin Kerr).
51
holds court, sitting cross-legged on his throne inside
a palace chamber. He receives four visiting sumptu-
ously attired dignitaries wearing the heads of animals.
From left to right, the headdresses seem to represent a
stag, a cougar, a mammal of uncertain identity, and a
jaguar. Obligingly, the man with the hart’s headdress
receives the caption chi-ji, chi[h]j, “he’s a deer”; but no
such courtesy is extended to us for the other three. The
dignitaries have apparently brought tribute, including
red-lipped containers (between them and the Maize
God), narrow-necked vessels (in front of the throne),
and baskets of jewelry, just behind the right arm of the
Maize God, on which he leans forward to converse.
Sadly, there has been some repainting of both the rim
text and the inset text describing the scene, yet enough
can be gleaned from both to establish that this was a
thoroughly legible text before it was touched up. The
opening Calendar Round (A1-B1) can’t be fully made
out, but seems to read in part 11 ? 8 Zip. The verb has
also been somewhat retouched, but it and the follow-
ing glyph (A2-B2) may have intended yu-UK’ chi, yuk’
chi[h], “there was drinking of pulque.” Narrow-necked
jars of the kind below the maize god would have been
appropriate for storing this beverage, and it may be
that the animated poses of the delegation reects their
inebriated condition, just as repainting may have oblit-
erated the small, shallow pulque-drinking cups some
of them may once have been holding. (In retrospect, it
is also possible that the chi-ji written above the man
to far left is to be interpreted as a cry for more chih, or
“pulque.”) The next four glyphs (A3-B4) are an appar-
ent couplet, 1-PIK K’EW-we 1-PIK ?, juun pi[h]k k’ewe[l]
juun pi[h]k ..., “there are eight thousand pelts (and) eight
thousand ...”. Unfortunately, a combination of erosion
and repainting renders the last glyph block unidenti-
able. Almost certainly it represents some other material
item of tribute, such as bu-ku (bu[h]k, “clothing”), pa-ta
(pata[n], “tribute items”), u-ha (uuh, “jewelry”), yu-bu-
TE’ (yubte’, “tribute mantles”), or something similar.25 In
any case, it’s intriguing to see k’ew(el) “pelts” enumer-
ated as a tribute item, and perhaps noteworthy to see
that its primary meaning of “pelt” remains.
Considerations
At this point, we believe that the case for we is convinc-
ingly made. Further, given the sign’s mutability of form
during the roughly three hundred years for which it is
presently attested (ca. ad 450–750), we trust our apolo-
gia for this delayed decipherment is both understood
and accepted. There remains much to do, inclusive of
scouring the corpus for Early Classic bu-semblants, Late
Classic yu- and TE’-semblants, and Terminal Classic
TE’-semblants in odd contexts, including close and oth-
erwise inexplicable association with Ce syllables, or with
still-undeciphered logograms (we list several candidates
for these below). Regretfully missing are any incontro-
vertible examples of we from the codices, meaning that
we still do not know for certain what form (or forms)
the sign may have taken in the Late Postclassic. A close
search for TE’-semblants in the Dresden, Madrid, and
Paris codices discloses no standout candidates. Earlier
examples, from the Protoclassic and Late Preclassic, are
also absent, but this is equally true of many otherwise
well-known signs. Yet we may at least hope for these to
emerge eventually, since it strains credulity to imagine
that we was only conjured in the late fth century.
In the meantime, we have gathered several other
potential occurrences of the we sign. Sadly, in many
of these cases, visual confusion (with yu, TE’, bu, and
still other signs), uncertain contexts, unique examples,
or damage and repainting have made certainty elusive.
Nonetheless, we offer them in the hopes that some of
our colleagues can take them further, or at least so that
they might serve as a convenient list for annotation and
expansion as and when new examples appear.
Yaxchilan Lintel 49
This Early Classic lintel belongs to the famous set of
four listing the rst ten kings of Yaxchilan, and dating
to ca. ad 550. During the reign of the sixth ruler, K’inich
Tatbu Jol II, sometime during the rst half of the fth
century, he took a captive with the name ke-?we-le
?PECH, kewel pech, “protruding-lipped duck” (C3-D3).
The identity and reading of the logogram is uncertain.
The Early Classic we candidate is practically identical
to the bu syllable in the name of K’inich Tatbu Jol II (at
B8). Still, ke-bu-le is not a particularly promising col-
location, and Chuj chew- v.pos. “to have protruding lips,
be lippy” (Hopkins 2012:54) would be a marvellous lex-
eme to have.
Tikal Altar 5
Following Lady Te’ Tuun Kaywak’s death (glyphs
10-14) we read that k’u-ba-ja ti-MRD-?we mu-ka-ja
9-AJAW-NAAH, k’u[h]baj ti ...w mu[h]kaj baluun ajaw
naah, “she was put/placed in/with/as ... (and) buried
in (the) nine lords house” (glyphs 15-18). There are only
six examples of MRD (Macri and Looper 2003:124),
which depicts a hand holding a series of stacked ob-
jects. Schele and Grube (1994:2) argue that the objects
represent “ints or obsidians,” yet we note that they
carry the “rough/wrinkly texture” marker which labels
the skin of crocodiles, cacao pods, dried leaves, and
testicles (Houston et al. 2006:16). The Tikal context is
The Syllabic Sign we and an Apologia
25 One of our reviewers suggests ka-wa (ka[ka]w, “chocolate”)
but we consider it unlikely. There is a ka-wa glyph in the PSS (just
above the chi-ji caption) and its form and interior details are rather
different from what survives in our mystery compound at B4.
52
unique in providing MRD with a nal phonetic comple-
ment (see Jones and Satterthwaite 1982:Fig. 23 glyph 16,
Fig. 94c), which suggests the value CEW. One candi-
date would be Ch’ol p’ew vt. “aumentar (to increase, add
to)” (Aulie and Aulie 1998:171). The presence of /p’/
in Classic times is still debatable (see Wichmann 2006),
but Kaufman and Norman (1984:85) note that “[s]ome
instances of /p’/ come from earlier /b’/, some from
/p/,” so this verb may have appeared as bew or pew if
/p’/ was not present. Other contexts of MRD include:
(1) the Houston Panel, F5, u-MRD, and note texture
marker (Mayer 1984:Pl. 26-27; www.wayeb.org/draw-
ings/col_houston_panel.png); (2) the Regal Rabbit Pot,
K1398, C8-D9, a-ni u-MRD yi-bi k’e-se; (3) K4930, A2,
MRD-ja; (4) El Peru Stela 44 (Stanley Guenter, person-
al communication 2015), and; (5) Ek Balam MT 7, B5
(Grube et al. 2003:25).
St. Louis Art Museum Column Altar
This unprovenanced monument contains the name of
a Bonampak ruler written ‘EDZNAB’-?-we, of unclear
transcription (see Martin and Grube 2000:184). The we
sign here is the typical Late Classic form common in
che-le-we spellings at Yaxchilan, and although the pre-
ceding sign looks somewhat like cho, there are some
visual differences, and cho-we would make for an awk-
ward grouping.
Tonina Fragment p2
This unpublished Late Classic monument fragment
contains two full glyph blocks and three partial ones,
and the context is therefore more than a little unclear.
Nonetheless, we apparently have we-le-AJAW, we(h)l
ajaw, “Lord of We(h)l.” The le variant is the rare T752
“licking dog” sign, of which we only have four other
examples.26 Unfortunately, there is indifferent semantic
control here and numerous candidate lexemes, includ-
ing Ch’olan wehl “fan” and Yucatec wel “a species of
small mosquito.”
K1398 (The Regal Rabbit Pot)
In God L’s pathetic plea to the Sun God, he apparently
states of the rabbit that u-CH’AM-wa ni-?we-ha ni-
bu-ku ni-pa-ta, uch’amaw niweha[l] nibu[h]k nipata[n],
“he took my teeth(?), my clothes, (and) my tribute of-
ferings.” Although it’s not evident that the rabbit has
snatched the chapfallen old god’s teeth, it is intriguing
to connect this to the mythical comeuppance of Seven
Macaw in the Popol Vuh, who has his bejeweled teeth
knocked out by the Hero Twins. Yet we are compelled
to note that, rather than we, this sign might instead rep-
resent an undeciphered ‘jewel’ sign (e.g., in X3 of the
supplementary series).
K1941
Glyphs 9-11 of this Xultun-style black background vase
name a royal woman of Tikal: IX-K’AN-na AHK-?-
T594-?we, ix k’an ahk ...ew, “Lady K’an Ahk (Ce)Cew.”
This would be the “full form” of we previously seen on
CLK 51, and it must be admitted that it is completely
equivalent to two nearby yu signs (at 6 and 7). But Yax-
chilan Lintel 23 (E2) also seems to provide a we pho-
netic complement to T594. Otherwise, the sign is best
known from its appearance in the name of the Palenque
patron god GIII, where it usually takes –wa (e.g., PAL
T.21 bench) but not in all instances (e.g., PAL T.I., Cen-
ter, E7), suggesting that it is a logogram terminating in
–w. If we are correct about the contexts with –we, then
the synharmonic rule suggests that it should in fact have
the shape (CE)CEW. Given that the sign seems to de-
pict an item woven from reeds, two candidates might be
Ch’ol sew(al) “red de tejido para llevar pozol” (Hopkins
et al. 2011:204) and Ch’olan ch’ehew “cup, bowl, plate,
dish (of any material)” (cf. Ch’ol ch’ejew, Aulie and Aulie
1998:28; Ch’orti’ ch’e’w, Hull 2016:120).27
K8017
This magnicent incised vessel from the Xcalum-
kin region of northern Yucatán contains an odd ?we-
HEADLESS.MAN-?ne spelling, where the medial sign
is likely to be a rare and uncataloged logogram. Once
again, the we would be a “full form” and is identical to
two yu syllables on the same vase. A second example
can be found on Xcalumkin Column 1, A3 (Lacadena
1995:86, Fig. 2.30), once more written ?we-HEADLESS.
MAN-?ne, and with the same striking similarity to a
nearby yu sign (at A2).
Zender, Beliaev, and Davletshin
26 For T752, Thompson (1962:340) notes that his examples are
“[a] menagerie which may contain more than one genus.” Indeed,
his second example is the ji rodent (TIK St 31, F7b), his sixth is either
OOK or TZ’I’ (PAL T.I. West, J3), and his eighth is BAHLAM (CRC
St 16, B19). Only Thompson’s seventh example (PAL T.I. East, K11)
matches the type illustration, which is a dog with its tongue hanging
out. Its value as le is certain given the context (CHUM-wa-ni-ya ta-
AJAW-le), as is also true of two che-le-we spellings (the previously
seen YAX St. 4, Fragment G, and YAX St. 24, front, pD1). Guido
Krempel’s (2015) addition of Tzocchen Miscellaneous Sculpture
1 to this list is a welcome one, and we also concur with him that
the le value probably reects acrophony from a root meaning “to
lick.” But rather than Yukatekan leetz’ (his suggestion), we propose
Proto-Ch’olan *lek’ “to lick” (Kaufman and Norman 1984:124 item
284) as the more likely source, particularly given that the earliest
appearances of this sign are in Chiapas. Similarly, the rarity and
exclusively Classic contexts of T752 make it unlikely that it served
as the source of T188 le (pace Krempel 2015:5).
27 If these observations are correct, then Christian Prager’s
recent proposal of BAL “to hide, guard, cover” for T594 is incorrect
(Prager and Braswell 2016:271).
53
Conclusions
Although still inconclusive, we feel that several of the
above contexts are promising, and it is quite likely that
other examples of we remain to be identied, so inter-
twined is its visual history with bu, yu, and TE’.
Our identication of the we syllable has shed con-
siderable light on several aspects of Maya writing. From
a lexical point of view, the new reading establishes the
presence during the Classic period of the words k’ew
(later k’eweel) “pelt” and we(’)bnaal “altar.” And it has
helped to clarify the precise grammatical roles and se-
mantic range of several others, such as chel “to space or
place evenly, spread out, ll,” eb “to send/deliver, give,”
and tek’ “to step on, stand upon, kick.” From the perspec-
tive of decipherment, the new sign appears as a pho-
netic complement to at least four different logograms,
providing a reasonably secure reading for one of them,
T832 K’EW “pelt,” and important phonetic information
which should assist in the eventual decipherment of
three others (T594, MRD, and the ‘headless man’). With
respect to script orthography, the we syllable provides
welcome new data relevant to the precise nature of the
relationship between vowel complexity and harmonic/
disharmonic spellings (Houston et al. 2004; Lacade-
na and Wichmann 2004; Robertson et al. 2007), and it
has permitted a useful test and extrapolation of David
Stuart’s (2002a, 2008) orthographic principle that sylla-
bles of the shape Ce (and Co)—being generally outside
the framework of the Ci, Ca, and Cu signs employed
to indicate vowel complexity—consistently spell lexical
roots synharmonically. Grammatically speaking, a sign
for we also has important implications for the phonetic
shape and historical development of two signicant
grammatical sufxes. The Classic Ch’olti’an CVC-root
transitive declarative sufx has been reconstructed
as –V1w, –VV1w, and –V1’w, and while we cannot fully
resolve this, recognition of the we sign reveals several
late synharmonic contexts (e.g., yebew, utek’ew, uCabaw)
where –V1w is surely indicated, suggesting loss of an
earlier long vowel during the eighth century (Houston
et al. 2004). Similarly, the –VV1w (later –V1w) antipas-
sive sufx of CVC-root transitives (Lacadena 2000 and
Zender 2010:13) here receives additional support in the
form of chelew, tiliw, and jolow. Last, but by no means
least, the we decipherment provides interesting histori-
cal sociolinguistic information, such as that part of the
pre-accession name of Yaxchilan’s Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV
apparently developed from cheleew to chelew in the capi-
tal during the late eighth century, and that client sites
did not all take up the new, presumably prestigious
pronunciation (or orthographic innovation) at the same
time. It is suggested that closer attention to such variable
linguistic features in Classic Maya texts stands to reveal
much about not only linguistic history, but the sociopo-
litical networks which inuenced language change.
References
Adamson, David Grant
1975 The Ruins of Time: Four and a Half Centuries of Conquest and
Discovery among the Maya. Praeger, New York.
Algeo, John, and Carmen Acevedo Butcher
2014 The Origins and Development of the English Language. Seventh
edition. Wadsworth, Boston.
Aulie, H. Wilbur, and Evelyn W. de Aulie
1998 Diccionario ch’ol de Tumbalá, Chiapas, con variaciones dialec-
tales de Tila y Sabanilla. 2nd edition. Summer Institute of
Linguistics, Mexico.
Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo, Juan Ramón Bastarrachea Manzano,
William Brito Sansores, Refugio Vermont Salas, David Dzul
Góngora, and Domingo Dzul Pot
1980 Diccionario maya Cordemex, maya-español, español-maya.
Ediciones Cordemex, Merida.
Berlin, Brent
1968 Tzeltal Numeral Classifiers: A Study in Ethnographic Semantics.
Mouton, The Hague.
Boot, Erik
2003 A New Classic Maya Vessel Type Collocation on a Uaxactun-
style Plate. Mayavase: www.mayavase.com/bootplate.pdf.
Colas, Pierre Robert
2004 Sinn und Bedeutung klassischer Maya-Personennamen.
Acta Mesoamericana 15. Verlag Anton Saurwein, Markt
Schwaben.
Davoust, Michel
1994 Glyphic Names for Some Maya Scribes and Sculptors of
the Classic Period. In Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989,
edited by Virginia M. Fields, pp. 105-111. Pre-Columbian Art
Research Institute, San Franisco.
Doyle, James
2015 Sacrifice, Fealty, and a Sculptor’s Signature on a Maya Relief.
Metropolitan Museum of Art Blog: www.metmuseum.org/
blogs/now-at-the-met/2015/sculptors-signature.
Golden, Charles, and Andrew Scherer
2006 Border Problems: Recent Archaeological Research along the
Usumacinta River. The PARI Journal 7(2):1-16.
Golden, Charles W., Andrew K. Scherer, and A. Rene Muñoz
2005 Exploring the Piedras Negras–Yaxchilán Border Zone:
Archaeological Investigations in the Sierra del Lacandón,
2004. Mexicon 27(1):11-16.
Graham, Ian
2010 The Road to Ruins. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Grube, Nikolai
2001 Los nombres de los gobernantes mayas. Arqueología Mexicana
9(50):72-77.
2002 Onomástica de los gobernantes mayas. In Memoria de la
Tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, v. 2, edited by Vera Tiesler,
Rafael Cobos, and Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 321-354.
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico.
Grube, Nikolai, Alfonso Lacadena, and Simon Martin
2003 Chichen Itza and Ek Balam: Terminal Classic Inscriptions
from Yucatan. In Notebook for the XXVIIth Maya Hieroglyphic
Forum at Texas, March, 2003, pt. 2, pp. 1-84. Maya Workshop
Foundation, Austin.
The Syllabic Sign we and an Apologia
54
Grube, Nikolai, and Camilo Alejandro Luín
2014 A Drum Altar from the Vicinity of Yaxchilan. Mexicon
36(2):40-48.
Grube, Nikolai, and Werner Nahm
1994 A Census of Xibalba: A Complete Inventory of Way
Characters on Maya Ceramics. In The Maya Vase Book, Volume
4, edited by Justin Kerr and Barbara Kerr, pp. 437-470. Kerr
Associates, New York.
Guenter, Stan, and Marc Zender
1999 Palenque and Yaxchilan’s Wars Against Piedras Negras.
Manuscript.
Helmke, Christophe
2010 The Transferral and Inheritance of Ritual Privileges: A Classic
Maya Case from Yaxchilan, Mexico. Wayeb Notes 35:1-14.
Helmke, Christophe, and Jesper Nielsen
2009 Hidden Identity and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica:
Supernatural Alter Egos as Personified Diseases. Acta
Americana 17(2):49-98.
Hill, Archibald A.
1959 Review of J. Eric S. Thompson, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing:
An Introduction, first edition, 1950. International Journal of
American Linguistics 18(3):184-186.
Hock, Han Henrich
1991 Principles of Historical Linguistics. 2nd ed. Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin.
Hofling, Charles Andrew
2006 A Sketch of the History of the Verbal Complex in Yukatekan
Mayan Languages. International Journal of American Linguistics
72(3):367-396.
Hofling, Charles A., and Félix Fernando Tesucún
1997 Itzaj Maya Dictionary. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Hopkins, Nicholas A., J. Kathryn Josserand, and Ausencio Cruz
Guzmán
2011 A Historical Dictionary of Chol (Mayan): The Lexical Sources
from 1789 to 1935. Electronic document, www.famsi.org/
mayawriting/dictionary/hopkins/dictionaryChol.html
2012 A Dictionary of the Chuj (Mayan) Language as Spoken in
San Mateo Ixtatán, Huehuetenango, Guatemala, ca. 1964-1965.
Jaguar Tours, Tallahassee.
Houston, Stephen D.
1988 The Phonetic Decipherment of Mayan Glyphs. Antiquity
62(234):126-135.
2012 The Good Prince: Transition, Texting and Moral Narrative
in the Murals of Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 22(2):153-175.
2013 Crafting Credit: Authorship among Classic Maya Painters
and Sculptors. Paper presented at the Dumbarton Oaks Fall
Symposium, “Making Value, Making Meaning: Techné in
the Pre-Columbian World.”
Houston, Stephen D., Barbara Fash, and David Stuart
2015 Masterful hands: Morelli and the Maya on the Hieroglyphic
Stairway, Copan, Honduras. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics
66:15-36.
Houston, Stephen D., and Simon Martin
2011 Let Thy Glyphs be Few: Abbreviations in Maya Writing. Maya
Decipherment: decipherment.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/
let-thy-glyphs-be-few-abbreviations-in-maya-writing/.
Houston, Stephen D., John S. Robertson, and David Stuart
2000 The Language of Classic Maya Inscriptions. Current
Anthropology 41(3):321-356.
Houston, Stephen D., and David Stuart
1989 The Way Glyph: Evidence for ‘Co-Essences’ Among the
Classic Maya. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 30.
Center for Maya Research, Washington, D.C.
Houston, Stephen D., David Stuart, and John S. Robertson
2004 Disharmony in Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: Linguistic
Change and Continuity in Classic Maya Society. In The
Linguistics of Maya Writing, edited by Søren Wichmann, pp.
83-101. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Houston, Stephen D., David Stuart, and Karl Taube
2006 The Memory of Bones: Body, Being, and Experience among the
Classic Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Hull, Kerry
2016 A Dictionary of Ch’orti’ Mayan–Spanish–English. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Kaufman, Terrence
2003 A Preliminary Mayan Etymological Dictonary. Electronic docu-
ment, www.famsi.org/reports/01501/pmed.pdf
Jones, Christopher, and Linton Satterthwaite
1982 The Monuments and Inscriptions of Tikal: The Carved Monuments.
Tikal Report No. 33, Part A. The University Museum,
Philadelphia.
Kaufman, Terrence, and William M. Norman
1984 An Outline of Proto-Cholan Phonology, Morphology and
Vocabulary. In Phoneticism in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing,
edited by John S. Justeson and Lyle Campbell, pp. 77-166.
State University of New York, Albany.
Knorozov, Yuri
1952 Drevniaia Pis’mennost’ Tsentral’noi Ameriki [The Ancient
Writing of Central America]. Sovietskaya Etnografiya 3:100-118
(October 1952). Moscow.
Krempel, Guido
2015 Two Miscellaneous Sculptures from Tzocchen in the Museo
del Pueblo Maya, Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan. Mexicon 37(1):1-7.
Lacadena, Alfonso
1995 Evolucíon formal de las grafias escriturarias mayas: implica-
ciones historicas y culturales. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad
Complutense, Madrid.
2000 Antipassive Constructions in the Maya Glyphic Texts.
Written Language and Literacy 3(1):155-180.
2013 Basic Grammar of Hieroglyphic Maya. In Grammar of
Hieroglyphic Maya, Notebook for the Advanced Workshop,
18th Annual European Maya Conference, Brussels, October
29-31.
Lacadena, Alfonso, and Søren Wichmann
2004 On the Representation of the Glottal Stop in Maya Writing. In
The Linguistics of Maya Writing, edited by Søren Wichmann,
pp. 103-162. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City..
Lacadena, Alfonso, and Marc Zender
2001 Notebook on Classic Maya Grammar. 6th European Maya
Conference, Universitt Hamburg, Germany, December 5-9.
Lamb, Dana, and Ginger Lamb
1951 Quest for the Lost City. Harper, New York.
Zender, Beliaev, and Davletshin
55
Laughlin, Robert M.
1988 The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of Santo Domingo Zinacantán.
Volume 1, Tzotzil-English. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Love, Bruce
2012 Maya Shamanism Today: Connecting with the Cosmos in Rural
Yucatan. Rev. ed. Precolumbia Mesoweb Press, San Francisco.
MacLeod, Barbara
1987 An Epigrapher’s Annotated Index to Cholan and Yucatecan Verb
Morphology. University of Missouri, Columbia.
Macri, Martha J., and Matthew G. Looper
2003 The New Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs, Volume One: The Classic
Period Inscriptions. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Martin, Simon
2015 The Dedication of Tikal Temple VI: A Revised Chronology.
The PARI Journal 15(3):1-10.
Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube
2000 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the
Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson, London.
2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the
Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Rev. ed. Thames and Hudson,
London.
Martin, Simon, Stephen D. Houston, and Marc Zender
2015 Sculptors and Subjects: Notes on the Incised Text of
Calakmul Stela 51. Maya Decipherment: decipherment.word-
press.com/2015/01/07/sculptors-and-subjects-notes-on-
the-incised-text-of-calakmul-stela-51/.
Mathews, Peter Lawrence
1997 La escultura de Yaxchilán. Serie Arqueología. Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico.
Mayer, Karl-Herbert
1984 Maya Monuments: Sculptures of Unknown Provenance in Middle
America. Sandra Brizee, tr.. Verlag von Flemming, Berlin.
1995 Maya Monuments: Sculptures of Unknown Provenance,
Supplement 4. Academic Publishers, Berlin.
Miller, Mary Ellen, and Simon Martin
2004 Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson,
London.
Montgomery, John
1995 Sculptors of the Realm: Classic Maya Artist’s Signatures and
Sculptural Style During the Reign of Piedras Negras Ruler
7. Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology, University of New
Mexico.
1997 Sculptors and Style at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In
Proceedings of the 1995 and 1996 Latin American Symposia,
edited by Alana Cordy-Collins and Grace Johnson, pp. 67-80.
San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego.
Morán, Fray Francisco de
1695 Arte y vocabulario de la lengua cholti que quiere decir la lengua
de milperos. Manuscript Collection 497.4/M79. American
Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
Morley, Sylvanus Griswold
1933 The Calakmul Expedition. Scientific Monthly 37:193-206.
1937- The Inscriptions of Peten. 5 vols. Publication 437. Carnegie
1938 Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.
Musée du quai Branly
2011 Maya, de l’aube au crépuscule: Collections nationales du
Guatemala. Musée du quai Branly, Paris.
Nevalainen, Terttu
2015 What are Historical Sociolinguistics? Journal of Historical
Sociolinguistics 1(2):243-269.
Page, Raymond Ian
1991 Anglo-Saxon Runic Studies: The Way Ahead? In Old English
Runes and their Continental Background, edited by Alfred
Bammesberger, pp. 15-39. Carl Winter Universittsverlag,
Heidelberg.
Prager, Christian, and Geoffrey E. Braswell
2016 Maya Politics and Ritual: An Important New Hieroglyphic
Text on a Carved Jade from Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica
27:267-278.
Proskouriakoff, Tatiana
1964 Historical Data in the Inscriptions of Yaxchilan, Part II: The
Reigns of Bird-Jaguar and his Successors. Estudios de Cultura
Maya 4:177-201.
Reents-Budet, Dories, Sylvaine Boucher, Ronald Bishop, and M.
James Blackman
2010 Codex-style Ceramics: New Data Concerning Patterns of
Production and Distribution. Paper presented at the XXIV
Symposium of Archaeological Investigations in Guatemala,
July 19-24. Museo Nacional de Arqueología e Etnología,
Guatemala.
Riese, Berthold
1984 Eine Alabasterschale mit Maya-Inscrift aus La Florida de
Copán, Honduras. Archiv für Völkerkunde 38:13-16.
Ringle, William M., and Thomas C. Smith-Stark
1996 A Concordance to the Inscriptions of Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico.
Publication 62. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane
University, New Orleans.
Robertson, John S., Stephen D. Houston, Marc Zender, and David
Stuart
2007 Universals and the Logic of the Material Implication: A Case
Study from Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. Research Reports on
Ancient Maya Writing 62:1-67.
Robicsek, Francis
1979 The Smoking Gods: Tobacco in Maya Art, History, and Religion.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Ruppert, Karl, and John H. Denison, Jr.
1943 Archaeological Reconnaissance in Campeche, Quintana Roo, and
Petén. Publication 543. Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Washington, D.C.
Saturno, William A., Heather Hurst, Franco D. Rossi, and David
Stuart
2015 To Set Before the King: Residential Mural Painting at Xultun,
Guatemala. Antiquity 89(343):122-136.
Schele, Linda
1985 Balan-Ahau: A Possible Reading of the Tikal Emblem Glyph
and a Title at Palenque. In Fourth Palenque Round Table, 1980,
edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 59-65. The Pre-Columbian
Art Research Institute, San Francisco.
The Syllabic Sign we and an Apologia
56
Schele, Linda, and David Freidel
1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. New
York: William Morrow and Company, New York.
Schele, Linda and Nikolai Grube
1994 Tlaloc-Venus Warfare: The Peten Wars, 8.17.0.0.0-9.15.13.0.0. In
Notebook for the XVIIIth Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop at Texas,
March 12-13, 1994, edited by Timothy Albright, pp. 79-167.
Department of Art and Art History; College of Fine Arts;
Center for Mexican Studies; Institute of Latin American
Studies, University of Texas, Austin.
Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller
1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Braziller;
Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth.
Scherer, Andrew K., and Charles Golden
2009 Tecolote, Guatemala: Archaeological Evidence for a Fortified
Late Classic Maya Political Border. Journal of Field Archaeology
34(3):285-305.
Simpson, Jon Erik
1976 The New York Relief Panel and Some Associations with
Reliefs at Palenque and Elsewhere, Part 1. In The Art,
Iconography and Dynastic History of Palenque, Part III:
Proceedings of the Segunda Mesa Redonda de Palenque, 1974,
edited by Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 95-105. Robert Louis
Stevenson School, Pebble Beach.
Slocum, Marianna C., Florencia L. Gerdel, and Manuel Cruz
Aguilar
1999 Diccionario tzeltal de Bachajón, Chiapas. Instituto Lingüístico
de Verano, Mexico.
Stone, Andrea, and Marc Zender
2011 Reading Maya Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Maya
Painting and Sculpture. Thames and Hudson, London.
Stuart, David
1995 A Study of Maya Inscriptions. Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
2002a Glyphs for “Right” and “Left”? Mesoweb: www.mesoweb.
com/stuart/notes/RightLeft.pdf
2002b Comment on Klein et al., “The Role of Shamanism in
Mesoamerican Art: A Reassessment.” Current Anthropology
43(3):410-411.
2005 The Way Beings. In Sourcebook for the 29th Maya Hieroglyph
Forum, March 11-16, 2005, pp. 160-165. Department of Art
and Art History, University of Texas, Austin.
2006 Jade and Chocolate: Bundles of Wealth in Classic Maya
Economics and Ritual. In Sacred Bundles: Ritual Acts of
Wrapping and Binding in Mesoamerica, edited by Julia
Guernsey and F. Kent Reilly, pp. 127-144. Boundary End
Archaeology Research Center, Barnardsville.
2007 Hit the Road. Maya Decipherment: decipherment.wordpress.
com/2007/12/07/hit-the-road/.
2008 Unusual Signs 1: A Possible Co Syllable. Maya Decipherment:
decipherment.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/unusual-signs-
1-a-possible-co-syllable/.
2013 Two Inscribed Bones from Yaxchilan. Maya Decipherment:
decipherment.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/report-two-
inscribed-bones-from-yaxchilan/.
2014 Notes on a Sacrifice Scene. Maya Decipherment: decipher-
ment.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/notes-on-a-sacrifice-
scene/.
Tate, Carolyn E.
1992 Yaxchilan: The Design of a Maya Ceremonial City. University of
Texas Press, Austin.
Thompson, J. Eric S.
1959 Systems of Hieroglyphic Writing in Middle America and
Methods of Deciphering Them. American Antiquity 24(4):349-
364.
1962 A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
1971 Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: An Introduction. 3rd ed. University
of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Wald, Robert F.
1994 Transitive Verb Inflection in Classic Maya Hieroglyphic
Texts: Its Implications for Decipherment and Historical
Linguistics. M.A. thesis, University of Texas, Austin.
Wichmann, Søren
2006 A New Look at Linguistic Interaction in the Lowlands as a
Background for the Study of Maya Codices. In Sacred Books,
Sacred Languages: Two Thousand Years of Ritual and Religious
Maya Literature, edited by Rogelio Valencia Rivera and
Geneviève Le Fort, pp. 45-64. Verlag Anton Saurwein, Markt
Schwaben.
Zender, Marc
1999 Diacritical Marks and Underspelling in the Classic Maya
Script: Implications for Decipherment. M.A. thesis,
Archaeology, University of Calgary.
2000 A Study of Two Uaxactun-Style Tamale-Serving Vessels. In
The Maya Vase Book, Volume 6, edited by Barbara Kerr and
Justin Kerr, pp. 1038-1055. Kerr Associates, New York.
2002 The Toponyms of El Cayo, Piedras Negras, and La Mar. In
Heart of Creation: The Mesoamerican World and the Legacy of
Linda Schele, edited by Andrea Stone, pp. 166-184. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2004 A Study of Classic Maya Priesthood. Ph.D. dissertation,
Archaeology, University of Calgary.
2005a ‘Flaming Akbal’ and the Glyphic Representation of the aj-
Agentive Prefix. The PARI Journal 5(3):8-10.
2005b The Raccoon Glyph in Classic Maya Writing. The PARI
Journal 5(4):6-16.
2006b Teasing the Turtle from its Shell: AHK and MAHK in Maya
Writing. The PARI Journal 6(3):1-14.
2010 Baj ‘Hammer’ and Related Affective Verbs in Classic Mayan.
The PARI Journal 11(2):1-16.
2014a On the Reading of Three Classic Maya Portrait Glyphs. The
PARI Journal 15(2):1-14.
2014b Chelew Chan K’inich and Other Readings with the Syllable
/we/. Manuscript.
2014c The Naming Insight: Hieroglyphic Names and Social
Identity in the Pre-Columbian Americas. In A Celebration of
the Life and Work of Pierre Robert Colas, edited by Christophe
Helmke and Frauke Sachse, pp. 61-74. Acta Mesoamericana
27. Verlag Anton Saurwein, Munich.
2014d Abbreviational Conventions of Classic Maya Writing. Paper
presented in the symposium “Words in Contexts: Perspectives
and Strategies for the Lexicography of Classic Mayan,”
Nordrhein-Westflische Akademie der Wissenschaften und
der Künste, Düsseldorf, Germany. Slightly updated version
available: www.academia.edu/29017617/Abbreviational_
Conventions_of_Classic_Maya_Writing.
2015 ‘Who Shall Read Them?’—The Ongoing Decipherment of
Maya Writing. Introductory lecture for the 20th European
Maya Conference, Universitt Bonn, Germany.
Zender, Marc, and David Stuart
2015 Origins and Development of the Classic Maya Syllabary.
Workshop presented at the 2015 Maya Meetings and
Workshops, University of Texas, Austin.